User-named locks with DBMS_LOCK

October 19, 2005

The application I’m working on involves a number of views that provide an interface between two databases that have quite different models. The views implement inserts, updates and deletes via Instead-of triggers.

On one of these views, the update trigger needs to actually do an update and an insert on the source table: it must update the existing row to mark it as “closed”, and then insert a new row to take its place. In this way the view hides the fact that the table keeps a history of changes.

Now, a logical constraint is that there can only be one “open” record for a given entity. Therefore, there can be zero or more “closed” records, and there must be a single “open” record. This constraint, however, has not been implemented on the database (naughty naughty) because our code is perfect and never makes a mistake ;)

This worked perfectly well until our thorough Java guy decided to do some load testing, in which a process would hammer away inserting, updating and deleting the same row over and over again, in multiple concurrent sessions.

This had the result that we ended up seeing lots of “open” records for the entity, which violates the logical constraint described above. “That’s not allowed” I said, and soon realised that the fact that multiple sessions are updating the same row means that even a trigger-based constraint check will not solve the problem, since the triggers cannot see updates from other sessions.

So, we need to have a lock of some sort, so that when one session wants to update an entity, other sessions cannot start updating it as well until the first one is finished. I can’t just lock the row I want to update, because after I’ve updated it, I still need the lock while I insert the new row.

The solution is to use a package supplied with Oracle calls DBMS_LOCK, with which I can request “user-named locks”. This package gives a lot of options but I’m only interested in simple Exclusive locks, so I’ll also create some wrapper procedures.

The above code “worked” ok (although I hadn’t yet tested to see if it was actually getting the lock) until I started calling it from triggers on the views, when I started getting “ORA-04092: cannot commit in a trigger”. What the? I wasn’t doing any commits in my triggers. I couldn’t find any references to the DBMS_LOCK functions doing commits in the 10g documentation, but I thought, ok let’s make these wrappers Autonomous, so they can commit in peace:

No good: I got “ORA-06519: active autonomous transaction detected and rolled back”! This didn’t make much sense at the time, but I put a COMMIT in anyway. But of course, this wouldn’t work with the triggers. Anyway, I started experimenting and soon realised that even if I got the wrappers to work, the locks weren’t being made anyway, and I was able to request locks multiple times, which I expected to be impossible if the wrapper was working correctly.

Finally, I logged in as a user with some DBA privileges and read the specification of the SYS.DBMS_LOCK package. The one thing that jumped out at me was a little comment under ALLOCATE_UNIQUE:

“This routine will always do a commit.”

There was my answer. It was the ALLOCATE_UNIQUE that was doing a commit, not REQUEST or RELEASE. And, because I was setting release_on_commit => TRUE in the call to REQUEST, whenever I committed the lock was being released, straight away.

So I changed release_on_commit => FALSE, and moved ALLOCATE_UNIQUE to a separate function (set up as an Autonomous Transaction). Having read a bit more I realised I could make this API nicer to the programmers by allowing the release_lock to accept the lock name instead of requiring them to manage the lock handle. I also improved the error messages.

This worked perfectly, even from triggers. I even tried it out with multiple sessions:

Session 1:

exec request_lock('JEFF');

Session 2:

exec request_lock('JEFF');

At this point, session 2 just hung – it was waiting for Session 1 to release the lock.

Session 1:

exec release_lock('JEFF');

Now session 2 returned and had the lock. The same thing happened if I just closed down session 1.

If I changed request_lock to set timeout to some value (e.g. 3 seconds), session 2 would wait for that amount of time, then raise my error message “request lock failed – 1″ (1 is the status code when a lock request times out).

I tried it with a deadlock situation, with timeout = MAXWAIT:

Session 1:

exec request_lock('MYLOCKA');

Session 2:

exec request_lock('MYLOCKB');

Session 1:

exec request_lock('MYLOCKB');

At this point session 1 hangs as it waits for session 2 to release the lock.

Session 2:

exec request_lock('MYLOCKA');

This is a deadlock. Both sessions are waiting for a lock held by the other session. After a few seconds Oracle automatically detects the deadlock and picks one session (at random, apparently) and it returns the lock status 2 (my code raises the error message “deadlock detected”). The other session stayed hung, however – it was still waiting, but there was no deadlock.

I tried the above scenario again, but with timeout = 5 seconds. If I executed the request_locks quick enough, I got “deadlock detected” on one session, and the other session eventually timed out.

So, everything works as expected, and the Java guys can hammer away at my views with impunity.

Hi Alexander,Thanks for your question.Check the sequence in which you call dbms_lock.request and dbms_lock.release. If you try to release a lock that has already been released, or which was never requested by that session in the first place, I'd expect to see a return value of 4.Jeff

As you say, if you set the maxwait to 10 seconds, the procedure should return 1 (timeout) if it waits that long for the lock – but this is assuming there is no deadlock. A deadlock happens if two sessions both try to lock a resource held by the other session – e.g. session 1 has lock A, session 2 has lock B, and session 1 tries to request a lock on B, and then session 2 tries to request a lock on A. In this case, Oracle will, after a few seconds, resolve the deadlock by returning status 2 (deadlock) to one of the sessions. The other session will keep waiting, and will eventually get a status of 1 (timeout).

If, on the other hand, both sessions have a very short maxwait (e.g. less than 3 seconds), it is possible that neither session would wait long enough for deadlock detection to happen; in which case both sessions will get status 1 (timeout).